CALL TO ORDER

Senate
President W. Andrew Marcus called the regular meeting of the University Senate
to order at 3:05 p.m. in 207 Chapman Hall.

APPROVAL
OF THE MINUTES

President
Marcus noted that there were some technical difficulties posting the October
meeting minutes for review, as well as a few minor revisions, thus approval of
the minutes was postponed until the next meeting (December 1st).

Remarks
from Senior Vice President and Provost John Moseley.Provost
Moseley provided an update on the record enrollment for fall term 2004.Total enrollment of 20,336 students is
an increase of 300 students compared with fall 2003.Using SAT scores as an indication, this is the best-qualified
class of freshman ever at the UO.Approximately 100 of the extra students are non-residents, which helps
the budget; the provost anticipates being able to avoid any additional budget
cuts for the 2004-05 year.And, in
spite of lost class sections due to previous budget cuts, students were able to
get their classes, which is a good sign.

Looking to
the next biennium, the provost remarked that the future does not look good even
though the governor strongly supports higher education.The overall budget picture for the
state is that projected revenues will fall about 10% short of the projected
essential (current services) budget level.Provost Moseley noted that although there is support from
the governor, it may not be possible to avoid state general fund budget cuts
during the 2005-07 biennium, though he hopes to be able to make up those
shortfalls through other means, and not have to make further reductions.

The
provost reported that the chief academic officers of the OUS institutions and
of the community colleges had a very productive meeting during the two days of
recent State Board meetings.The
major topic of discussion was the General Education Transfer Module (now called
the Oregon Transfer Module), and getting the proposal into a form suitable for
both the community college students and OUS schools.The provost supported the proposal and process noting that
if the OUS and community colleges cannot come to an agreement on transferring,
it is almost certain that the legislature will impose a common core curriculum
for higher education.The
potential of a legislatively imposed common core curriculum should be
sufficient motivation to produce a positive, workable transfer module for
students.

In other
board activity, athletics department budgets were discussed.The provost noted that OSU has paid off
their $5- to $6 million debt; they continue to subsidize athletics at a rate of
approximately $4 million per year from their general fund monies, which is
about the same rate of subsidy as PSU (which is a higher percentage rate
because PSU has a much smaller athletics program and budget than OSU).The UO, on the other hand, does not
subsidize athletics with any general fund monies, and is working hard to keep
it at zero subsidy.Lastly, the
provost said he is setting up a meeting of the Senate Budget Committee (SBC) to
review financing plans for a possible basketball arena.He explained that he does not want to
present a plan to the SBC that he cannot endorse himself.The arena proposal is much different
than the previous Howe field proposal, and will be facilitated by a non-profit
LLC that is associated with the UO Foundation and that will limit the
university’s liabilities.

During a
question and answer period, the provost confirmed that the Williams Bakery site
is the only site currently under consideration for the arena, but it is not
certain the site will work.In
response to a question regarding the salary freeze situation, Provost Moseley
said it appears the freeze will not continue in the next biennium, and there
may be a small amount of salary funding available – perhaps 2% each year
– and possibly we would not be restricted in looking internally for
additional salary funding.

Remarks from James O’Fallon, NCAA Faculty Athletics
Representative for the UO, regarding faculty oversight of Athletics Department
compliance with NCAA regulations.President Marcus commented that President
Frohnmayer’s task force on athletics looked at the role of athletics on
the campus, and ways to better integrate athletics and academic unity.There were several recommendations from
the task force, one of which was for better communication between athletic
activities and operations at the university.With this in mind, President Marcus has asked for a series
of reports this year including a report from the faculty athletics
representative (given during fall term), from the athletics director (given
during winter term), and from the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (given
during spring term).For the first
report in this series, Mr. O’Fallon, law, who is the UO’s NCAA
Faculty Athletics Representative, gave a brief overview of the
divisions/structure of the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) and
his role as faculty representative.He noted that the top level, Division IA in which the UO competes, has
116 schools.This level of
competition involves a certain commitment of funding for student scholarships,
number of sports supported, and so forth.Mr. O’Fallon explained that the primary role of the faculty
representative is to insure compliance with NCAA regulations regarding student
athletes’ academic eligibility to compete at this level.

NCAA rules
are designed to help students be able to graduate on time within their degree
program and within academic eligibility requirements for competition.Mr. O’Fallon noted that four
years is no longer the “normal” time for an average student to
graduate with a degree, and this, too, is the case for most student
athletes.In reality, it is now
taking students about five years to complete their degree programs.Student athletes have five years of
eligibility to participate in sports while completing their degree.The complexity of the rules surrounding
students’ satisfactory progress toward degree completion is fairly
complex, with information used to determine progress acquired from a variety of
sources.The Registrar’s
Office is a major information source and compiles the basic data.Additionally, the Academic Services for
Student Athletes program, which is under the direction of the vice president
for academic affairs, provides degree monitoring and academic support for
student athletes.Mr.
O’Fallon explained that he reviews detailed data on every student athlete
to make sure each student is in compliance with eligibility rules.

The
faculty representative also sits on the campus Intercollegiate Athletics
Committee and participates in the policy discussions.The complexity of NCAA rules on a variety of levels, besides
eligibility, requires approximately four compliance staff members in the
athletics department.Beyond the
campus, the first level of common governance is the Pacific 10 Conference,
governed by a policy making council that consists of the faculty athletic representative,
athletics director, and the senior women’s administrator for each of the
10 member institutions.Each
school has one vote, traditionally exercised by the faculty athletics
representative.

Mr.
O’Fallon further remarked that the governance structure of Division I
beyond the conference level is a corporate model.Rather than operate as a committee-of-the-whole as it used
to, the governance structure now works through committees and a number of cabinets.They report to a management council that
is represented by the conferences that comprise Division I; that body
ultimately reports to the NCAA Board, which is made up of chief executive
officers.The general idea is this
process and structure puts the campus presidents in greater control of academic
standards and recruiting practices.

During a
question and answer period, Mr. O’Fallon responded to a question about
the nature of infractions at the UO.He commented that most infractions are minor and come to no one’s
attention other than drafting a letter of caution to let the student athlete
involved know of the infraction.An example infraction might be if a perspective student athlete was on
campus for a visit brought along his younger brother; if lunch was
inadvertently purchased for the younger brother (not allowed) as well as the
student athlete (allowed), it would be a rule violation.When this happened on our campus, the
younger was charged for the lunch and we declare ourselves in violation of the
rules.In this case, the sanction
is pretty minor, but nevertheless rules require adherence.Mr. O’Fallon stated that in the
time he has been at the UO, there has only been one major infraction, which
occurred several years ago with the overly aggressive recruitment of a student
athlete by a football coach.The
NCAA accepted our response to the situation, although we were placed on
probation for a couple of years.The NCAA can suspend a program if there are too many infractions.Lastly, he noted that the PAC 10
conference is unique in that it has a significant compliance function within
the conference that is sanctioned by the NCAA.

To a question regarding the faculty
representative’s independence from the athletics department, Mr.
O’Fallon replied that he is appointed by, and reports to, President
Frohnmayer.The position also is
partially supported by the vice president for administration.He continued that athletes overall have
higher graduation rates than the general student body (92% of those who stay
for 4 years graduate), which he agreed, may be due in part to good academic
support through student services for athletes and good time management.

UNFINISHED
BUSINESS

Motion
US03/04-10—Enable the Assembly to Convene with Full Legislative
Authority.President Marcus reported that since
the last senate meeting, in which the senate voted to postpone action on this
motion, an ad hoc committee had met and developed a substitute motion that uses
consistent language, assures access to assembly and voting membership lists,
and provides a mechanism for avoiding frivolous motions.He asked for, and received a motion to
replace the original motion with the substitute motion.Mr. Frank Stahl, biology, who sponsored
of the original motion, spoke in support of using the substitute motion.The motion to replace the original
motion with the ad hoc committee’s substitute motion was passed by voice
vote.Motion US03/04-10 now reads as
follows and was opened for discussion:

WHEREAS: Section 6.6 of the Enabling Legislation of
the University of Oregon governance document requires that a University
Assembly with full legislative power shall be convened after a petition to do
so has been signed by 33% of the "Voting Faculty", and

WHEREAS:
convening the University Assembly with "full legislative power"
requires the attendance of a majority of the University Assembly members as
prescribed by the Oregon Public Meetings Law, and

WHEREAS:
in the absence of explicit provisions, this quorum is unlikely to be met, be it

MOVED
THAT: The University adopt the following procedures to enable a University
Assembly to convene with full legislative power:

·(a)
Prior to circulating a petition to convene the Assembly with full legislative
power, Petitioners will submit the text of their petition, endorsed by at least
40 assembly members, to the Secretary of the Faculty who will forthwith give
notification of the petition to members of the Assembly. The announcement shall
include the text of the petition and item (b) of this motion.

·(b)
Deans, directors and department heads will adopt practices, appropriate for
their administrative units, that promote the face-to-face accessibility of
their University Assembly Members to petitioners.

·(c)
In order for the petition to go into effect, petitioners must submit sufficient
valid signatures to the Secretary within 100 days of the petition announcement.

·(d)
A meeting of the University Assembly called by petition of 33% of the Voting
Faculty shall be held at 3:30 PM, on a Wednesday, not less than ten nor more
than 25 days from the time of submission of said petition, except that no
meeting shall be scheduled for exam week, between quarters or during the summer
quarter. In such an event, the meeting would be scheduled for the second
Wednesday of the subsequent quarter.

·(f)
Further notification of the meeting shall include notices in the Daily Emerald
and on the University Calendar, Senate, and Assembly Web sites. On the Monday
immediately prior to the meeting, members shall be reminded to attend. The
reminder shall include the text of this motion.

·(g)
An alphabetical list of Assembly Members (without phone numbers or e-mail
addresses) shall be maintained and linked from the University Assembly Web
site. The list shall be headed by the criteria for membership as specified by
the charter and the list shall be updated annually, as early in the Fall
Quarter as is feasible.

·(h)
An annually updated list of the Voting Faculty with campus addresses shall be
maintained and linked from the University Assembly Web site. The list shall be
headed by the criteria for membership as specified by the charter and the list
shall be updated annually, as early in the Fall Quarter as is feasible.

·(i)
The UO Secretary shall maintain an annually updated list of Assembly Members
with phone numbers and e-mail addresses. The list shall be used only to forward
communications, from the University President, the Secretary of the Faculty, or
the UO Senate President, that are relevant to the business of the University
Assembly.

·(j)
A link to the text of this motion entitled "Assembly with Legislative
Power" shall be maintained on the University Assembly web page. The web
page containing the motion shall have a link to the " Charter,
Enabling Legislation and ByLaws".

Senator
Garrett Epps, law, moved to amend section (e) of the motion to include the
first sentence only, that is, to delete the second sentence: “The
notification shall remind recipients that they are Members of the Assembly,
that their attendance at the Assembly meeting is expected, and that attendance
at the Assembly Meeting takes priority over routine obligations.”Senator Epps opined that the sentence was troublesome in two
respects: it suggests attendance at such a meeting is not a choice, and that
the meeting takes precedence over teaching and research obligations.

Debate on
the amendment hinged on the compulsory-sounding nature of the sentence and
whether faculty should have a choice in attending.Mr. Stahl spoke against the amendment, saying that such a
meeting is an unusual circumstance and thus does take priority over routine
obligations in order to attain a quorum.He stated that once appropriately petitioned, assembly members must meet
to be in compliance with the enabling legislation.Senator Epps replied that the simple act of convening a
meeting, whether there was a quorum or not, satisfies the legislative
requirement to meet.

Senator
Jeffrey Hurwitz, art history, and Mr. Nathan Tublitz, biology, spoke in
support of the amendment, objecting to the “expected
attendance” and the “takes priority” language as being
undemocratic.The question was
raised whether there were other examples of expected attendance at a meetings
taking priority over teaching and research obligation, and none was given.Senator Ellen Scott, sociology,
suggested that perhaps other language urging attendance could be substituted in
the sentence in question.The
discussion then focused on several versions of suggested substituted text.The question was called; the vote to
amend the motion by deleting the second sentence in section (e) passed by voice
vote.The sentence was
deleted.

Senator
Hurwitz then moved to amend section (e) by adding a different second sentence:
“The notification shall remind recipients that they are members of the
assembly and encourage their attendance.” Mr. Stahl objected to the amendment saying the language was
not strong enough.Senator Anne
McLucas, music, spoke in favor of the amendment, reasoning that if the reason
to call an Assembly with legislative authority was strong enough, assembly
members would attend, and thus encouraging attendance was sufficient.Mr. Stahl responded that assembly
members who are in administrative positions might not have job flexibility to
enable them to attend a meeting unless the wording about attendance was
stronger.The question to amend
was called; the motion to amend section (e) to include the sentence encouraging
attendance was defeated (hand vote, 13 in favor; 14 opposed).An amendment of section (e) offered by Mr. Stahl to add
the sentence, “The notification shall remind recipients that they are
Members of the Assembly and that their attendance is expected and may take
precedence over routine obligations” was similarly defeated (hand
vote, 13 in favor; 14 opposed).

In a final
attempt to amend section (e) with language that would convey the importance of
attendance at a duly petitioned assembly meeting, but would not compromise
assembly members’ decisions regarding other obligations such as research
and teaching, Senator Lise Nelson, geography, moved to add the sentence:
“The notification shall remind recipients that they are Members of the
Assembly and that attendance at the Assembly Meeting may take priority over
routine obligations.”This language seemed
agreeable to most senators.The
question was called; the motion to amend section (e) by adding the sentence,
“The notification shall remind recipients that they are Members of the
Assembly and that attendance at the Assembly Meeting may take priority over
routine obligations” passed by voice vote.The sentence is added to section (e) of US03/04-10 to read
as follows:

(e) The Secretary of the Faculty shall send timely
notification of the meeting to all members of the University Assembly. The
notification shall remind recipients that they are Members of the Assembly and
that attendance at the Assembly Meeting may take priority over routine
obligations.

The main
motion, as amended, was again on the floor for discussion.Asking if there was further debate
on the main motion and hearing none, motion US03/04-10, as amended, to enable
the assembly to convene with full legislative authority was passed by voice
vote.

After the vote, Senator Epps spoke about some
misinformation in support of the motion just passed that had circulated by
email prior to the meeting.Speaking as the person who chaired the January 2003 assembly meeting called
by petition regarding the Iraq war issue, Senator Epps asked to go on record
saying the failure to meet a quorum at that meeting was not due to failure on
the part of the administration to encourage attendance, or on their own
personal feeling about the war in Iraq; rather, many assembly members had
strong feelings about the topic of the meeting (proposed resolution against the
war in Iraq) and exercised their right not to attend the meeting.

NEW BUSINESS

Election
of Interinstitutional Faculty Senate representative and an alternate.Senator Jeanne Wagenknecht, finance, was nominated and
elected to serve a 3-year term as the UO’s representative on the IFS,
beginning in January 2005.She
replaces Jim Earl whose term expires December 2004.Hearing no nominations for the alternate representative
position (a 1-year term), President Marcus asked senators to give the position
their consideration for nomination and election at the December senate meeting.

The University Council proposes the following change in
University policy governing the mark of Incomplete for undergraduates.

Moved that,

1.Marks
of “I” (Incomplete) awarded to undergraduate students Winter term
2005 and beyond must be removed within one calendar year of the end of the term
in which the course was taken. Failure to complete the course by the
deadline will result in the mark of “I” automatically changing to a
grade of “F” (Failure) or “N” (No Pass).

2.Marks
of “I” for undergraduate students who are graduating must be
removed no later than 30 days after the degree is awarded. Failure to
complete the course by the 30-day deadline will result in the mark of
“I” automatically changing to a grade of “F” or
“N.”

3.In
cases where a student’s inability to complete the work by the deadline is
due to extraordinary circumstances* the student may choose to:

·Petition
the Scholastic Review Committee to be allowed to withdraw from the class
(change the ‘I’ or ‘F’ to a ‘W’
[Withdrew]).

·Contact
the Office of Academic Advising or the Office of the Registrar who will review
extraordinary circumstances and take appropriate action as defined by the
Academic Requirements Committee.

*Examples: catastrophic injury or illness or
severe cognitive or psychological limitations preventing completion of work

Mr.
Severson provided background information about the proposed policy change
saying that under the current policy students have four terms to makeup an
incomplete grade, or if absent from campus, they have three years to makeup an
incomplete.Further, if students
fail to remove an incomplete from their transcripts the “I” stays
on the transcripts indefinitely.

The
changes proposed by the Undergraduate Council would give students one calendar
year to remove an incomplete from their transcripts.If students do not remove the incomplete in one calendar
year, the “I” would automatically change to an “F” or
no pass (“NP”) grade, depending on the course.The proposal also sets up a process to appeal
if students find themselves in extraordinary circumstances and unable to remove
the incomplete, and thus avoid an “F” grade.The reason for the proposed policy
change is to align UO incomplete grading policy with those of nearly all other
AAU universities, most of which have a specific incomplete grade makeup
deadline, usually shorter than the UO’s deadline, and which change
incompletes not made up to an “F” or no pass.The Undergraduate Council believes that
making such policy changes would have a positive effect in encouraging students
to complete their classes.Current
policy allows the “I” to stay on the transcript indefinitely and
does not affect the GPA.In
essence, it functions as a withdrawal (“W”) even though it is not a
withdrawal, and the student did not withdraw from the class in a timely
manner.Mr. Severson noted that
there are thousands of incompletes on transcripts of graduates; the council
believes that more students would graduate in a timely manner if they were
encouraged to complete these incomplete courses.

When the floor was opened for debate, the discussion
included clarification that: the policy only applies to undergraduates; faculty
may arrange with students for shorter (than 1 year) makeup times; faculty
members in some departments create contracts with students, specifying work to
be completed and required completion dates; and, if the faculty member in
question is no longer at the UO, the incomplete makeup would be arranged with
the department head and current faculty members.Mr. Malcolm Wilson, classics, spoke in favor of the motion
and allayed some members concerns by noting the effectiveness of the appeal
process (through the Academic Requirements Committee) in cases of exceptional
or unusual circumstances.There
was further discussion that some faculty members do not fully understand the
current incomplete grade policy, and some sentiment that the proposed motion
was more streamlined and easier to understand.

Senator Sol Hart, ASUO, asked how students and faculty
would be made aware of or notified of the changed policy if the motion
passes.He suggested the motion be
amended to include a #4 statement that, when the mark of “I” is
given to a student, the instructor will notify the student about how to remove
the “I”.Discussion on
the amendment indicated that many senators were in support of appropriately
notifying students of the “F” grade consequence for incompletes not
made up, but there was indecision about the precise wording needed to convey
the information.On the other
hand, senators Peter Gilkey, mathematics, and Christian Cherry, dance, spoke in
opposition to the amendment saying it was not necessary because there are
already procedures in their respective departments requiring explicit makeup
contracts with students who receive “I” grades.Senate participant Carla McNelly,
multicultural affairs, confirmed that similar incomplete grades arrangements
are in place in the romance languages department, in concert with faculty
legislation passed in March 1978.

With the
hour growing late, and the type of notification issue yet to be resolved,
President Marcus indicated he would appoint an ad hoc committee to work on
procedures for notifying students of changes in incomplete grade policy,
assuming the motion, as proposed, passed.In concurrence, Senator Hart withdrew his
amendment.Motion US04/05-1 to
change policy regarding the handling of incomplete grades was put to a voice
vote and passed.

ADJOURNAMENT

With no
other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.